New Castle County Council on Tuesday failed to override County Executive Matthew S. Meyer’s veto of substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 24-161, which would have adopted portions of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code. The roll-call vote was 8 in favor, 4 opposed, and 1 not voting — short of the 10 votes required to override the veto.

Councilwoman (full name) Durham, the ordinance sponsor, told the council the change would bring the county into compliance with a state-mandated timetable and called waiting for other jurisdictions unacceptable. “New Castle County can only be responsible for its own code as required by state law and to bring it into compliance with state law, which is what this ordinance is exactly attempting to do,” she said during council debate.

Supporters during public comment urged the council to override the veto. Anne Kirby, representing the Delaware Council of Green Building United, said she was “stunned” by the veto and argued the county should not delay measures that reduce long-term energy costs. Dustin Thompson, director of Sierra Club Delaware, said the energy code changes had been negotiated for years and said they would save residents money over time.

Opponents, including Jerome Heisler of the Rabil Group, urged caution and said council should consider the ordinance’s effects on affordable housing and study the fiscal impacts further before enacting the changes. The county executive’s veto letter, read into the record earlier in the meeting, said, in part, “Now is not the time to increase the cost of housing in New Castle County.”

The ordinance was originally framed by supporters as a local step to align with a state mandate that local codes be “net-zero energy capable” by specified dates for residential and commercial construction; Councilwoman Durham cited Title 7 provisions that direct the Delaware Energy Office to set procedures for local compliance. After the failed override, the county retains its current local energy code until the council or administration brings a different ordinance back for consideration.

Action: The veto override motion for substitute No. 1 to Ordinance 24-161 failed to reach the 10-vote threshold (roll call: 8 yes, 4 no, 1 not voting).